Tuesday, Dec 30, 2008
I thought I'd do a second annual TV.com "year in review" - lots of stuff has happened on the site since the odometer rolled over from 2007 - and...well...I did one last year.
1. The Ban Hammer Following lots of trouble with spam blogs and threads in anime forums veering into thousands of posts of nonsense and subsequent bannings of users, danmod himself started a thread in the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" Forum inviting anyone who had a problem to speak up. Thousands of posts later, the furor died down and the problem seems to have lessened. Ironically, the "instant message" feature of the new TV.com hompage seems to invite just as much spam with thoughtful postings like "yes", "sucks", or "the new TV.com blows".
2. 2008's Level Snafu Earlier in the year, developers added a half-baked new calculation formula that caused lower level users to leap multiple levels in one day simply by making a few forum posts. Higher level users got much smaller "automatic increases" and a great cry was heard across the land. It was fixed within a week but the odd numbers couldn't be removed. Strangely, despite the September "redesign" - the level system was fairly stable in 2008, only going south again this last week and a half of the old year.
3. The New Look aka "We Asked For It" Obviously, this was the biggie and one that bothered me less than most of the vocal users. I never thought CBS would pay millions and millions for CNET just to keep everything the same but other people disagree. Objections fall into about four camps - those that think old bugs should have been fixed first (unrealistic to my mind, CBS wants to see something faster than that - and they paid the money), those that have trouble reading the site (I guess I can agree there, while it's OK to my almost 48 year old bifocaled eyes, others seem much more bothered), the changes to blog structure (less blogs visible, fewer "creative" options in blogs, etc.), and those that hate change or large corporations in general. Whatever I think about any of the changes, I really am disappointed in those who are calling the community managers names for not responding to every feedback post personally or just go off on "staff" in general. These folk are not high on the CNET foodchain and presumably chose to keep their jobs and make the best of introducing the changes. Sure - dan, Jaxie, and nilla could take on top management at CBS/CNET - but it would only end up in them being canned. They don't even supervise the website developers, much less CNET department directors and CBS Vice Presidents.. What did bother me about the whole affair was that new database bugs were introduced, I find that technically pretty inexcusable as re-skinning a site or adding new media fields shouldn't have any impact on already existing functions. I never could understand why beta testing isn't done on TV.com, but this was true before September. If I have a criticism of community staff - it's with the language they use to first announce changes, i.e the "we listened and responded" lines that are pretty ludicrous.
4. The Ghost Town It's easy to see the falling numbers of site visitors to TV.com by looking at data from Alexa.com. These numbers are interesting but the nose dive had begun before the redesign. The numbers for imdb and TV viewing stats in general have suffered identical decreases. Frankly, the Presidential election in the US and the nosediving economy are probably big factors. Even 1,000 long-time users leaving in one week and never coming back wouldn't explain the decline in site visitors that has been happening since March 2008. Probably all these things are in play, and there is no doubt that the site is really dead these last few months. I wonder if Mad_Buck will ever return to deride watchers of "Buffy" and "Charmed" or those who name actors in "Lost" as "all-time greats"?
5. New Horizons Despite all the negative reactions to TV.com lately, it is kind of interesting to see the site venture into new and uncharted waters. It might not work, but it sort of fits the theme of the new year. Have a good one, all.
Comments
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Posted Dec 30, 2008 7:04 pm PT
Hey dee-t, what's up? You keep working your blogs, images and all, sure you're crazy but you seem to be adjusting fine. 
Posted Dec 30, 2008 7:09 pm PT
Great insight. I think all websites have their highs and lows. I haven't scampered off, stomping my feet over the changes. I just lost interest and have moved on.
What I try and focus on is that we were the pioneers for a new site. We helped launch a new venue and it has taken off in several new directions. It's current direction is not one I particularly care for, but I'm cool with it. We can all just sit back and reminisce of old aquaintances and take a cup o' kindness. Happy new year Mac-les!
What I try and focus on is that we were the pioneers for a new site. We helped launch a new venue and it has taken off in several new directions. It's current direction is not one I particularly care for, but I'm cool with it. We can all just sit back and reminisce of old aquaintances and take a cup o' kindness. Happy new year Mac-les!
Posted Dec 30, 2008 7:10 pm PT
LOL, seems reasonable, was wondering where you were at lately Kimba...
Posted Dec 30, 2008 7:29 pm PT
Great blog. On the nose as ususal. I just find the site less user friendly than ever before. I feel more isolated and it feels like less of a community. I agree with you also, why would any of the cosmetic changes interfere with the database in anyway.
Overall it seems less fun here. If it wasn't for you, Indy and the other "cornerstones" I wouldn't be out here much at all anymore.
Overall it seems less fun here. If it wasn't for you, Indy and the other "cornerstones" I wouldn't be out here much at all anymore.
Posted Dec 30, 2008 7:34 pm PT
I think (I'm not sure) that CBS wants to encourage people to come out of their blogs and comfortable editorships and become more active in participating in forums and polls etc. It probably is a more expansive model that would drive more site visitors overall - as a "media mecca" sort of deal. It hasn't really worked, but then it's a tough time in most of the world these days.
Posted Dec 30, 2008 7:40 pm PT
What do the young people say nowadays: "I couldn't care less" or "I could care less"? Anyway, I never visit the homepage, don't blog much, don't much care about the social aspects of the site and am untroubled by non-existent video features on the show guides I look after. I've followed your recent posts on your expectations of the directions in which CBS will take the site and can see where you (and they) are coming from. I can live with it, so long as I get to continue to work on the data of the shows I love.
Like others, I am deeply upset about the extent to which developers have broken links, and made data more difficult both to access and to input correctly. Like you, I don't see why a new look necessitates so much damage to the database features. Nor do I understand the scorched-earth policy, whereby successive generations of developers are simply unable to restore features once they are broken or removed.
I've also been quite disappointed by members of the community team, not because I expect them to challenge the corporate ethos, but because of the outrageous material that they have been putting out, from the corporate "we've been listening" nonsense, through danmod's frankly jaw-dropping attack on one forum poster for not being "positive", and the self-serving posts by the team about the redesign and bugs.
You will be aware also of a more aggressive implementation of the MIA protocol by nilla_chelle01, which has led to the loss of some long-serving editors of good standing. To me, this sits oddly with the failure to deal with several MIA repeat offenders, or to implement the ProblemEditor protocols, or to address the long-standing problem of rogue contributors and incompetent editors, and the reward schemes that encourage those behaviours.
It's not been a great year at TV.com. And I still haven't received any of the prizes I won this year!
Like others, I am deeply upset about the extent to which developers have broken links, and made data more difficult both to access and to input correctly. Like you, I don't see why a new look necessitates so much damage to the database features. Nor do I understand the scorched-earth policy, whereby successive generations of developers are simply unable to restore features once they are broken or removed.
I've also been quite disappointed by members of the community team, not because I expect them to challenge the corporate ethos, but because of the outrageous material that they have been putting out, from the corporate "we've been listening" nonsense, through danmod's frankly jaw-dropping attack on one forum poster for not being "positive", and the self-serving posts by the team about the redesign and bugs.
You will be aware also of a more aggressive implementation of the MIA protocol by nilla_chelle01, which has led to the loss of some long-serving editors of good standing. To me, this sits oddly with the failure to deal with several MIA repeat offenders, or to implement the ProblemEditor protocols, or to address the long-standing problem of rogue contributors and incompetent editors, and the reward schemes that encourage those behaviours.
It's not been a great year at TV.com. And I still haven't received any of the prizes I won this year!
Posted Dec 30, 2008 8:22 pm PT
Great blog, Mac. The Ban Hammer didn't affect me at all. I think I only heard about it from you. I don't remember the Level Snafu, but I've seen level fluctuations many times over the last 3.5 years, so they don't really bother me. As for the redesign, the difficulty reading has bothered me the most, and it looks like they are working on that. When I signed on just now the font was darker and larger. The short list of friends blogs would bother me more if I weren't on here every 10 minutes. But yeah, the "we listened and responded" thing was crap. I miss some of my friends who have left TV.com as a Ghost Town, but things change. I think it really started during the writer's strike. There are some new features I am enjoying, like the videos (when they work) and the interviews with users.
But yeah, the "we listened and responded" thing was crap. I miss some of my friends who have left TV.com as a Ghost Town, but things change. I think it really started during the writer's strike. There are some new features I am enjoying, like the videos (when they work) and the interviews with users.
Posted Dec 30, 2008 8:36 pm PT
Some important points are raised...but I maintain that the community team is caught between two worlds and is ill-equiped to deal with either. I find it odd that the retirement policy is so aggressive on MIA editors and no one makes basic checks of horrendous editors (many of whom attain high levels of standing on the site).
However, what no one seems to want to address is that outside of the "good old boy/girl" network of old TV.com "friends", many editors themselves have got to be held responsible for poor quality guides. These guides diminish all of the good parts of the site, and I no longer defend them. Why should CBS?
I obviously agree with the assertion that staff language on change has been too "up beat" rather than matter-of-fact" - but then I'm not dealing with about 200 crabby members who post repeatedly and are only concerned with how TV.com was "murdered" because of one or two things they like that were changed.
It's TV.com - a website about TV, it's just not a struggle of "good vs. evil"...
However, what no one seems to want to address is that outside of the "good old boy/girl" network of old TV.com "friends", many editors themselves have got to be held responsible for poor quality guides. These guides diminish all of the good parts of the site, and I no longer defend them. Why should CBS?
I obviously agree with the assertion that staff language on change has been too "up beat" rather than matter-of-fact" - but then I'm not dealing with about 200 crabby members who post repeatedly and are only concerned with how TV.com was "murdered" because of one or two things they like that were changed.
It's TV.com - a website about TV, it's just not a struggle of "good vs. evil"...
Posted Dec 30, 2008 8:45 pm PT
Hey iMom, you have always struck me as a person who has a good balance as far as the site is concerned. Nothing life or death but still hanging on and doing things and keeping up with what is important to you.
Posted Dec 30, 2008 8:49 pm PT
Interesting summary of the year that was in TV.com land. I understand the points about CBS wanted to make their mark but I really don't understand why they would make the site more difficult to use, especially some of the community features like the blogs. The changes have largely driven me away from the blogs though I'm trying to ease my way back into it. Paragraph breaks in blog comments still don't work without manual "br" tags and we'll probably never have the old Tracked Blogs list with 10 items.
I already spent much of my time here on the forums so I'm not sure why it was necessary to force people off of blogs or make it more difficult to keep up with them. That was the net effect of the changes, so-called "improvements", and new and old bugs. I'm not resistant to change but I am resistant to change for change's sake that results in markedly decreased functionality. I mean, CBS did pay all that money for TV.com and the other CNET sites, so why would they want to break down the site and help force people away from the site? The writers' strike, the election and the bad economy certainly play a part in the declining audience numbers but the bugs give very little reason for casual visitors to remain or return. I don't mind the focus on online video but I don't see why the videos can't be added without mangling the guides and the submission forms.
You are dead-on about horrendous editors, big-time gamers, illiterate editors and guide collectors who "protect" their fiefdoms by rejecting valid submissions from others. It remains a big problem, especially when some of them are so prominent through their own self-promotion. It really is disappointing when compared with the dismissal and force-retirement of some quality MIA editors. This latter problem is why I have been so pessimistic about what has happened with the latest round of site redesigns and "upgrades". I've always been positive in the past but it's hard to be cheerful about what's going on when certain individuals were allowed to get away with so much, even when there was and is overwhelming evidence implicating them.
I keep saying to myself that I'll resume blogs and such, but it still isn't happening. Maybe I'll be more motivated once the calendar changes to 2009. Hopefully the new year will bring much better fortune, for TV.com, for the community and for the wider world that is going through much more serious problems. But that brings up another personal gripe. TV.com is supposed to be a place to post and learn about TV-related info, and to chat with other people from across the country and around the world. It's not supposed to be a virtual obstacle course for new and veteran members, or a test of patience as hordes of new bugs are unleashed on a regular basis. It is disappointing to see some of the long-time members fading away because of all these unneeded changes. I really hope someone at CNET/CBS finally understands that they need to stop breaking down the site on a regular basis with these unnecessary site redesigns. I refuse to call them "upgrades".
I already spent much of my time here on the forums so I'm not sure why it was necessary to force people off of blogs or make it more difficult to keep up with them. That was the net effect of the changes, so-called "improvements", and new and old bugs. I'm not resistant to change but I am resistant to change for change's sake that results in markedly decreased functionality. I mean, CBS did pay all that money for TV.com and the other CNET sites, so why would they want to break down the site and help force people away from the site? The writers' strike, the election and the bad economy certainly play a part in the declining audience numbers but the bugs give very little reason for casual visitors to remain or return. I don't mind the focus on online video but I don't see why the videos can't be added without mangling the guides and the submission forms.
You are dead-on about horrendous editors, big-time gamers, illiterate editors and guide collectors who "protect" their fiefdoms by rejecting valid submissions from others. It remains a big problem, especially when some of them are so prominent through their own self-promotion. It really is disappointing when compared with the dismissal and force-retirement of some quality MIA editors. This latter problem is why I have been so pessimistic about what has happened with the latest round of site redesigns and "upgrades". I've always been positive in the past but it's hard to be cheerful about what's going on when certain individuals were allowed to get away with so much, even when there was and is overwhelming evidence implicating them.
I keep saying to myself that I'll resume blogs and such, but it still isn't happening. Maybe I'll be more motivated once the calendar changes to 2009. Hopefully the new year will bring much better fortune, for TV.com, for the community and for the wider world that is going through much more serious problems. But that brings up another personal gripe. TV.com is supposed to be a place to post and learn about TV-related info, and to chat with other people from across the country and around the world. It's not supposed to be a virtual obstacle course for new and veteran members, or a test of patience as hordes of new bugs are unleashed on a regular basis. It is disappointing to see some of the long-time members fading away because of all these unneeded changes. I really hope someone at CNET/CBS finally understands that they need to stop breaking down the site on a regular basis with these unnecessary site redesigns. I refuse to call them "upgrades".
Posted Dec 30, 2008 10:20 pm PT
Mac-
Excellent post and a great summary of the last year at TV.com - my first year here. Your points are right on. I have been saddened by the disappearance of some of the more prolific blog writers - Vendbien, Marksvigil, Count-Chocula. I looked forward to their entertaining blogs. As for the current state of TV.com, I find many of the cosmetic issues an annoyance but, like you, I am far more disturbed with the impact on the database. My inability to submit an accurate crew list is driving me crazy. A crew member is there one day and gone the next. It makes me crazy to think of the number of duplicates that are most likely being created. It would seem to me that the integrity of the data should be more of a priority.
I also almost stood up and applaused when I read your comments about editors. I agree that there are some truly horrendous ones out there that go unchecked. The worst ones being rather abusive people who are at a high level and hoard guides. I actually had an editor this week who call me lazy and infer that I was an idiot because I made a submission citing the specific website but not giving him the exact URL. I know reporting him would be no use so my only option is to avoid his guides. It's a shame since he has several and I have been fixing his cast lists on multiple guides for quite some time.
And last, I agree that the staff are in a tight spot. I find their scripted blogs (i.e. Novel Adventures) particularily annoying but I try overlook it and remind myself that they must be getting very little support internally.
Thanks for the great blog!
Excellent post and a great summary of the last year at TV.com - my first year here. Your points are right on. I have been saddened by the disappearance of some of the more prolific blog writers - Vendbien, Marksvigil, Count-Chocula. I looked forward to their entertaining blogs. As for the current state of TV.com, I find many of the cosmetic issues an annoyance but, like you, I am far more disturbed with the impact on the database. My inability to submit an accurate crew list is driving me crazy. A crew member is there one day and gone the next. It makes me crazy to think of the number of duplicates that are most likely being created. It would seem to me that the integrity of the data should be more of a priority.
I also almost stood up and applaused when I read your comments about editors. I agree that there are some truly horrendous ones out there that go unchecked. The worst ones being rather abusive people who are at a high level and hoard guides. I actually had an editor this week who call me lazy and infer that I was an idiot because I made a submission citing the specific website but not giving him the exact URL. I know reporting him would be no use so my only option is to avoid his guides. It's a shame since he has several and I have been fixing his cast lists on multiple guides for quite some time.
And last, I agree that the staff are in a tight spot. I find their scripted blogs (i.e. Novel Adventures) particularily annoying but I try overlook it and remind myself that they must be getting very little support internally.
Thanks for the great blog!
Posted Dec 30, 2008 10:21 pm PT
Well thought. The new design did anger all of us.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 12:57 am PT
It's just not as much fun here as it used to be since they made the changes; I haven't abandoned the site but I've frequented it less. and many long-time contacts have jumped ship so that hasn't helped. I stopped contributing to episodes up until just recently, and that's slowed down as well. I don't know the ins and outs of the workings of this site as others do - it doesn't really interest me to bother with knowing - but it just seems like a big "If it wasn't broken, why did you fix it?" and while there were glitches, there now appear to be just as many if not more. The white background still makes me see little spots.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 5:07 am PT
I think one problem is that many editors can work tirelessly all over the site to make great guides but this is diminished by guides that are terrible that stand right along side the good ones.
If CBS is going to herald this as a one stop location for quality information, it actually has to BE that... These problems existed long before the change in management. Competition may drive information, but when snide added a level system that allowed editors to work in secret, it was a recipe for competition with no accountability for the information.
If CBS is going to herald this as a one stop location for quality information, it actually has to BE that...
These problems existed long before the change in management. Competition may drive information, but when snide added a level system that allowed editors to work in secret, it was a recipe for competition with no accountability for the information.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 6:46 am PT
Hi Mac-Ale, I look forward to your recap, I really get lost out in the loop of things around here. I'm so involved with the old stuff (tv guides, old shows, newspapers, magazines) that I miss out on alot of the goings on. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. Happy New Year Mac-Ale all the best in 2009.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 7:22 am PT
Hey AF, have a good one yourself. I know that you are combing through every scrap of information to get information on this site. When I joined TV.com, I thought all editors did that. Just the other day, one of your PMs reminded me to check Internet Archive to see if another old kinescope of a 50s program I edit had been added. And one was.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 7:32 am PT
Happy New Year, Mac!
Your insights into what has happened on TV.com over the course of 2008 is fairly well on-the-money.
The Ban Hammer was just one measure that was needed to eliminate the nonsense that was spreading through the forums like a virus. If only the same efforts were put into dealing with sloppy editors.
The point allocation system was a bit wonky, but I agree that the first few levels should be progressed through quickly and then have the brakes applied more forcefully as they advance. I know that you're not a big fan of the level system, but it does offer a simple degree of positive reinforcement for the people who invest their time into improving the database. For the gamers who abuse it, the boom should land hard and decisively.
The New Look. What more needs to be said? I will admit that I was (and still am) on of the most angry opponents of the new look, not because I dislike change, but because the site I loved had been so horribly damaged. Navigating the site became so tricky, I thought I was going to run into a Minotaur somewhere along the line. Importing cast and crew was about as efficient as stacking marbles in a corner. Many of the simple functions that we were used to and took for granted (e.g. blog styling and smileys) were taken away for no good reason. Reviewing and editing blog and/or forum posts are still tricky and paragraph breaks require XHTML codes instead of a simple "enter" keystroke. It galls me even further that the design team took the time to re-render the homepage while over 100 bugs and glitches still remained. With regard to your statement that CBS would not buy the site without planning to redesign it completely, I'm one of those who will disagree (surprise!). Buying a business because you're impressed with its ability to generate income is a solid business move, but ripping that very site down and driving off the customers you were after isn't. Further ignoring the requests and pleading of the people who had remained is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I just hope and pray that the problems we've been living with for the past three months get resolved soon.
The number of visitors to the site was falling throughout the spring and summer, but that is more attributable to the ending of an already short regular television season. The continuing drop after the new season began is largely due to the unfriendly and sterile appearance of the new TV.com. The functionality issues don't help either.
I hope and pray the site improves. I hope they allow the mods the authority to police for gamers. I hope they warn editors who allow their guides to deteriorate to crap that they need to do a better job.
I WANT MY SMILEYS BACK!!! 
Hope you have a good one, Mac! Here's wishing all the best to you and yours in the New Year.
P.S. Scotch kicks bourbon's butt.
Your insights into what has happened on TV.com over the course of 2008 is fairly well on-the-money.
The Ban Hammer was just one measure that was needed to eliminate the nonsense that was spreading through the forums like a virus. If only the same efforts were put into dealing with sloppy editors.
The point allocation system was a bit wonky, but I agree that the first few levels should be progressed through quickly and then have the brakes applied more forcefully as they advance. I know that you're not a big fan of the level system, but it does offer a simple degree of positive reinforcement for the people who invest their time into improving the database. For the gamers who abuse it, the boom should land hard and decisively.
The New Look. What more needs to be said? I will admit that I was (and still am) on of the most angry opponents of the new look, not because I dislike change, but because the site I loved had been so horribly damaged. Navigating the site became so tricky, I thought I was going to run into a Minotaur somewhere along the line. Importing cast and crew was about as efficient as stacking marbles in a corner. Many of the simple functions that we were used to and took for granted (e.g. blog styling and smileys) were taken away for no good reason. Reviewing and editing blog and/or forum posts are still tricky and paragraph breaks require XHTML codes instead of a simple "enter" keystroke. It galls me even further that the design team took the time to re-render the homepage while over 100 bugs and glitches still remained. With regard to your statement that CBS would not buy the site without planning to redesign it completely, I'm one of those who will disagree (surprise!). Buying a business because you're impressed with its ability to generate income is a solid business move, but ripping that very site down and driving off the customers you were after isn't. Further ignoring the requests and pleading of the people who had remained is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I just hope and pray that the problems we've been living with for the past three months get resolved soon.
The number of visitors to the site was falling throughout the spring and summer, but that is more attributable to the ending of an already short regular television season. The continuing drop after the new season began is largely due to the unfriendly and sterile appearance of the new TV.com. The functionality issues don't help either.
I hope and pray the site improves. I hope they allow the mods the authority to police for gamers. I hope they warn editors who allow their guides to deteriorate to crap that they need to do a better job.
Hope you have a good one, Mac! Here's wishing all the best to you and yours in the New Year.
P.S. Scotch kicks bourbon's butt.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 12:58 pm PT
CBS is in the media business, I'm not really surprised that the blog bugs haven't been fixed. Most of the features were probably taken out to streamline the pages. Fixes may be on someone's list but there are lots of things on the guides that aren't fixed. For example, I just noticed the trivia guide feature is broken on guides yesterday, it will only display first season trivia no matter how you try to work it. I'll never agree on the level system, not only does it result in gamers but bad data. People are wrong when the say TV.com is more accurate than wikipedia or imdb. In some cases it is more complete, but in far more cases, TV.com is filled with speculation, errors, horrible grammar, etc. Add in the fact that someone has to fix all the junk that can be added over the course of years and it's a bad deal. If someone just wants some silly number, I would say fine, but not when it harms the guides.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 1:16 pm PT
I've come to see the changes here as inevitabilities. People expect continuity with these recent changes, but there are no connections between the latest upgrades and the previous ones. TV.com is an obvious gem of a domain name, and the new owners certainly aren't fearful of upsetting the loyal and faithful ("The Fugitive" Season 2 Volume 1, for example); so, I'm thankful that the changes haven't been even more severe. It's obvious that the staff is caught in a hard place with all of this, so I won't complain about them nor their ironic posts. The database side of the site needs improvement, as it always has and will, but it's still here and relatively functional. Hopefully, display issues will eventually be addressed--both the overall look (I hate all of this white) and the arrangement of data on the guides. In general, I'm just not going to get too worked up about the changes. As far as editors' issues, I've seen the extremes, from those who collect guides for no apparent reason, to those that use the guides as their personal sandboxes...I could go on and on about this subject, but, I'll say instead: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Posted Dec 31, 2008 1:37 pm PT
I like the phrase "personal sandboxes"...
Posted Dec 31, 2008 1:50 pm PT
That really does sum it up. As a moderator the new homepage comments are a realy nightmare. People post what they like and most are off topic and disruptive because they are so short. They do more harm than good, especially as they get placed in the proper forums.
As for bannings, the Avatar forum is still a mojor problem. As for Bill being unhappy about good editors going, I'm not sure who they are but they've made great progress with some of the bad editors and gamers, including the most high profile one on the site.
As for bannings, the Avatar forum is still a mojor problem.
As for Bill being unhappy about good editors going, I'm not sure who they are but they've made great progress with some of the bad editors and gamers, including the most high profile one on the site.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 3:31 pm PT
Since the homepage really is like Instant Messaging or Chat, why save the comments in forums and save the record of the posts? I can see wanting "fresh" stuff but why not make it temporary and forget using server space to record it?
Posted Dec 31, 2008 4:30 pm PT
Well I hope 09 will be a better year for tv.com. Happy New Year!
Posted Dec 31, 2008 5:16 pm PT
I don't know about better, but it will probably be at least as interesting...
Posted Dec 31, 2008 5:30 pm PT
I would spend more time here but I go blind trying to look at the site for long periods of time. Honesty about the site would be nice. Still, if they are going to skin the site, don't break the database and give a dark option for real 4 eyes like me. It's kinda dead and I don't spend too much time here or try too hard, any more.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 8:31 pm PT
Though I don't have any problems with the visual look, I can see how some people are. Even for me, the type size in blog comments is too small.
Posted Dec 31, 2008 8:58 pm PT
I have never been a fan of Avatar and have hardly visited those pages of tv.com. I can only imagine what was going on there. I don't like the instant messaging feature on the homepage either, I find it nonsense and destructing. The homepage is the showcase of a site and I rather doubt that this shop window calls in for new customers.
I actually like the level approach, it's kind of motivating. May be CBS might change the calculating system too. I would prefer a grading which rewards quality guides and penalizes gaming.
I agree, that site moderators don't have much say on management level. But some responsible manager at CBS should be able to read the declining numbers and go after the causes. I personally wrote my own comments in the surveys they were taking and hope someone will read them.
Let's hope for the best and have a happy new year.
I actually like the level approach, it's kind of motivating. May be CBS might change the calculating system too. I would prefer a grading which rewards quality guides and penalizes gaming.
I agree, that site moderators don't have much say on management level. But some responsible manager at CBS should be able to read the declining numbers and go after the causes. I personally wrote my own comments in the surveys they were taking and hope someone will read them.
Let's hope for the best and have a happy new year.
Posted Jan 1, 2009 1:14 am PT
Hey Mac, Happy New Year! I enjoy your annual summaries of the site's year...let's see what 2009 brings!
Posted Jan 1, 2009 3:43 am PT
I wonder of there is an overall mission or if the site is just going to change in small peices as time goes on.
Posted Jan 1, 2009 10:03 am PT
Posted Jan 1, 2009 11:58 am PT
MAC--I agree with you about the small font size.
Posted Jan 1, 2009 4:11 pm PT
Whenever I get depressed about all the display bugs, I just think of the thousands and thousands and thousands of credits on TV.com that are duplicates, span many people (hardly a day goes by when I don't see a drama director born in 1911 who someone has added as a script supervisor on some episode of "Heroes"), or were added as n/a by editors who didn't understand.
Posted Jan 1, 2009 7:41 pm PT
My highlights would include 1) Staff being very diligent in handling duplicate guides and editorless subs, even willing to fudge with movietome to consolidate people 2) Working out partnerships with Hulu and getting some nice video feeds 3) Seeing my buddies become mods 4) Cast reordering tool and custom crew titles making unwieldy lists organized and interesting 5) Seeing some great TV shows this year thanks to recommendations from my TV.com friends!
Posted Jan 4, 2009 8:00 pm PT
Page
1
« prev
|
next »
Friends
My Friends
Deanna_T
great post, bud.
you summed up everything nicely right in time for the new year.
i was away for most of this semester, but aware of all the changes taking place. i new redesign was a bee swarm of angry users and ppl parting like the red sea. lets see what the new year berings.